Sure, the Science is Settled !

By steven d keeler | Mar 13, 2014

 

 


How the establishment climate scientists "work" .

First there was No Pause ( global temps ), then, Oh There is a slight slowdown, then oh, there is a pause but ( place half a dozen different excuses here ), then oh, the models don’t show the pause and can’t explain it so the sensitivity ( to various climate forcings ) MAY be wrong, now, no the sensitivity is correct we didn’t put enough or the correct adjustments in to the models.



You just couldn’t make this stuff up and they ( establishment climate scientists ) actually have the nerve to call it Science, this has to be one of the biggest scientific farces ever.



Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity .

Nature Climate Change  (2014)  doi:10.1038/nclimate2136


Here I analyse results from recent climate modelling intercomparison projects to demonstrate that transient climate sensitivity to historical aerosols and ozone is substantially greater than the transient climate sensitivity to CO2. This enhanced sensitivity is primarily caused by more of the forcing being located at Northern Hemisphere middle to high latitudes where it triggers more rapid land responses and stronger feedbacks.

 

Shindell now says


Does “Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity” by Drew Shindell make sense ?



As with most papers by establishment climate scientists, no data or computer code appears to be archived in relation to the paper. Nor are the six models/model-averages shown on the graphs identified there. However, useful model-by-model information is given in the Supplementary Information. I was rather surprised that the first piece of data I looked at – the WM-GHG (well-mixed greenhouse gas) global forcing for the average of the MIROC, MRI and NorESM climate models, in Table S2 –  is given as 1.91 W/m², when the three individual model values obviously don’t average that. They actually average 2.05 W/m². Whether this is a simple typo or an error affecting the analysis I cannot tell, but the apparent lack of care it shows reinforces the view that little confidence should be placed in studies that do not archive data and full computer code – and so cannot be properly checked.

 

On Further Study


Oh, and about the current administrations "full and open transparency", The Shindell paper is done entirely on the taxpayer’s dime, publicly funded at NASA, yet it is behind a paywall at Nature Climate Change .

 

Comments (0)
If you wish to comment, please login.